PLEASE USE A NICKNAME

Sometimes more than one person posts as "anonymous". If you would, put a name, nickname or pen name that will help eliminate confusion. To do this, when you type in your comment, chose the "Name/URL" option and then type in whatever name you want to use. You don't have to have a URL unless you want to advertise your blog or website. Please do comment.

About Me

Husband, father, veteran and ENTP.
If you were king, you would have a duty to rule for the common good. In order to rule for the common good, you would need to know what works and what doesn't work. To know this you would need to know a little bit about government, some history, science, psychology, theology, religion et al. If "we the people" rule, we have a similar duty to our country. My handle is "Civis", because I take citizenship seriously.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Relativism II

Aside from the fact that there is no workable argument for Moral relativism as a viable moral theory, and that Moral Relativism would lead to absurd corollaries with which no one could agree, there is a huge problem with Moral Relativism in the public square:

If, as my friend Rodak insists, the state must maintain an orthodoxy of moral relativism, upon what is the state to base its laws? Law must be based on morality. If it is not, then what is it based on? The tyranny of the majority? Bigotry? Prejudice? Self interest of the powerful? The dictates of the powerful?

No doubt you ask, “But which theory?” That is a good question, and would make for an interesting discussion, but we have to take things one at a time. Before going into that, first we should consider the matter in the abstract.What do we base out law on if not objective morality.

52 comments:

Civis--You continously mischaracterize my position in this whole discussion. I have not said "the state must maintain an orthodoxy of moral relativism". What I have said is that American society is founded upon a secular constitution, which allows for diverse, pluralistic, freedom of conscience. How you turn that into "an orthodoxy of moral relativism" is beyond me.

I have no dog in this hunt, but you can, by analogy, perhaps, see how it

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: Never post ona blog before having your morning coffee.

Here, as a ferinstance, is where Jean-Paul Sartre said morality comes from:Human freedom is always oriented towards some goal that is at least implicitly practical. "This absolute end, this imperative which is transcendent yet acquiesced in, which freedom itself adopts as its own, is what we call a value." Sartre says, "man has to be considered as the being through which the Good comes into the world"; yet he says that the Good is universal. Therefore, the morals of the world are universal, but the people in the world decide what is right and wrong. "Man us the source of all good and all evil and judges himself in the name of the good and evil he creates. Therefore a priori neither good nor evil."

The "authentic" subject, as Sartre will later explain in his Notebooks for an Ethics, will learn to live without an ego, whether transcendental or empirical, in the sense that the transcendental ego is superfluous and the empirical ego (of scientific psychology) is an object for consciousness when it reflects on itself. We are responsible for our egos as we are for any object of consciousness. Sartre's subsequent works takes pains either to ascribe moral responsibility to agents individually or collectively or to set the ontological foundations for such ascriptions.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/

So, you see, even atheistic, humanistic philosophies can, and do, insist on a morality and posit a basis for one.

I always know I’ve got you when you start protesting that I'm not being fair to you.

"You continuously mischaracterize my position in this whole discussion. I have not said "the state must maintain an orthodoxy of moral relativism". What I have said is that American society is founded upon a secular constitution, which allows for diverse, pluralistic, freedom of conscience. How you turn that into "an orthodoxy of moral relativism" is beyond me."

On 3/17/08 at 6:49 PM you said, "Public relativism is a must" under WWWtW #5 on your blog.

What is the point of your March 26, 2008 9:30 AM and March 26, 2008 9:38 AM comments?

On 3/17/08 at 6:49 PM you said, "Public relativism is a must" under WWWtW #5 on your blog.

Here, in context, is why I called "public relativism" a must:

But, yes, public secularism is a must because sectarian religion is divisive. Public relativism is a must because private (not public) religion recognizes differing truths as objective. WWWtW does not, and should not, have the power to say "Because such-and-such is objectively True, the writings of Nietzsche will be banned, since they do damage to that objective Truth.

It might have been more precisely accurate had I said "pluralism" where I said "public relativism"--but the point I was making stands.And again I ask, "So what?" That pluralism (or moral choices made relative to one's own faith tradition) is exactly what is protected by the Constitution.

Those laws came into effect only because of political/economic pressure. That said, the quotes from Sartre that I posted would provide a purely humanist basis for such laws, without reference to any a priori notion of good and evil.

I think there are a few issues here. 1) is there objective morality2) if yes, how do we access it. 3) if no, what do we use to construct our moral systems.

It seems at this point we don’t want to deal with number two in this comment section. Right now, the question seems to be: if objective morality cannot be known what moral system to we employ? Namely, does a moral system without so type of objectively moral principals work? If I have wrongly identified the issue, please correct me.

I think Sartre is a good example of moral relativism and so I take his mention as invitation to critique him. For Sartre morality comes down to subjective opinions.

The problem I have with Sartre is that each person becomes the legislature of their own personal morality and universalizes that subjective moral system with the concern of being consistent. This still doesn’t tell me why this morality should be universally binding except to say for the sake of the “authenticity” of the individual creating the moral system. What guides this process? Personal whim?

It is almost as if Sartre is at one hand arguing that humanity is naturally moral and ought to be consistent, but he gives no ground for the morality or consistency. On the other hand, Sartre is arguing there is no human nature. Within this system, although he would not have considered his philosophy a system, there is no means by which you cannot denounce any ideology or actions as evil, you can only claim that you don’t like them. Rape, murder, slavery, torture, etc. all take the dimension of being determined as good or evil based off a personal opinion and choice. Sartre wants to point to interpersonal recognition and say that this recognition should lead to a moral relationship, but he gives no reason why this relationship can ultimately be good or evil since neither good nor evil exists.

I find the work of Sartre interesting, but I don’t see how it can ground a universally binding moral system since it presupposes that neither good nor evil exists. Sartre does not really deal with epistemology but exalts his existentialism and his though assumes Athiesm, a fact he never actually argues for.

You can always try to point to the psychological and existential dimensions of a person and try to argue why a particular person, and even all persons, tend to act in a moral framework, but this hardly justifies why this moral framework and not any other. If anything this psychological and existential dimension points to some universal primordial desire to do good and avoid evil and discern how to act accordingly as embedded in human existence. Sartre seems to say “be authentic” and then anything that person does makes them authentic.

Saying that laws come into effect because of political and economic pressure begs the question. Did the law come into effect because of political and economic pressure just happened to exists? Or does political pressure and economic pressures exist because people are trying to pursue some perceived good that becomes expressed as the political and economic pressure. By what standard do we judge whether or not these political and economic pressures and laws that are produced from them are good or bad? Especially since we can historically see these pressures going in favor of slavery and segregation while at another point towards emancipation and desegregation.

We need some standard beyond what moral relativism can supply to judge actions otherwise it is a matter of the "tyranny of the majority" as edmcgon points out. Of course this doesn't tell me how exactly we are to hope that the majority are getting it right since there is theoretically no good in which to conform our actions. Thus no matter what the majority decides it will automatically be right, simply because it is the reality that exists. To justify any type of morality no matter how evil it currently seems would be as simple as changing one's opinions about it. The problem of rape, murder, torture, slavery and the such isn't because they are wrong but I should merely have a different opinion about them. Somehow that isn't very satisfying to me.

Especially since we can historically see these pressures going in favor of slavery and segregation while at another point towards emancipation and desegregation.

It should be noted that we see this universally. In this country we see theists on both sides of the slavery issue, and both sides claiming the Bible as the justification of their position.

There might be many ways to characterize Sartre in a word, but I would not pick "whimsical" as one of them. The defining value of existentialism is freedom. A man is not free unless he takes full responsibility for his actions. Nor is a man free unless all men are likewise free, because the supervision of the enslaved is a vexing burden. Even if it does not disturb the conscience on moral grounds, it is a utilitarian and practical nightmare. Simply picture yourself as the manager of a large crew. Would you prefer workers who were assigned to their tasks arbitrarily, many of whom would rather be elsewhere; or would you prefer to be supervising a staff who chose their positions freely and hope to advance (and to have a rewarding work-day) by doing their work in an "authentic" manner? Morality then becomes that behavior which allows the individual maximum freedom to act in his own self-interest, within the context into which he is "thrown" by existence, without impinging upon the freedom of others; this latter because it would ultimately and inevitably, be a contradiction of his own project. Thus, in forging his own authenticity, a man rationally develops values which are universally applicable within a larger social context. He can, then, in cooperation with other free and aunthentic individuals, develop a political system and a set of laws that will tend to protect individual freedom by prohibiting "inauthentic" modes of acting out in a public context.To my understanding, Jesus Christ taught and exemplified an existentialism which has since been smothered by various Pharisaic, sectarian, "rule books" of precisely the type that He preached against when He preached that the letter of the law should not be allowed to kill the spirit of the law. Thus, if freedom hunger, or freedom from infirmaty, were to be effected by working on the Sabbath, Jesus worked on the Sabbath. As He said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." For Jesus, as for Sartre, an authentic man was the ground of his own morality. St. Augustine recognizes this when he says, "Love and do what you will."There is an analogy between Christian love and Sartrean authenticity.

“It should be noted that we see this universally. In this country we see theists on both sides of the slavery issue, and both sides claiming the Bible as the justification of their position.”

Exactly, which means that we need a moral standard that is not arbitrary by which to judge which side of the issue we ought to take. Our moral standards must be consistent with other aspects of morality. If human existence and freedom is a basic good, we must ask if slavery is consistent with recognizing the goodness and dignity of these particular human beings. It does not matter what the economic and social pressure happens to be moving the majority because slavery is either something that should be changed or should not. Are you willing to admit that if the majority of the world’s inhabitant wanted to enslave Americans that it would magically be the moral thing to do because it occurs due to social and economic pressures?

I used “whimsical” to denote arbitrary. I clarify that because I understand it could be used otherwise. I think Sartre’s understanding of morality is arbitrary because morality for two different people could be inherently different and contradictory. I consider this to be arbitrary.

I understand that Sartre thinks the defining value of existentialism is freedom and I have no problem with this aspect. I am actually quite fond of existentialism (not necessarily the existentialism of Sartre). It is in Sartre’s lack of epistemology and understanding of human nature that I think he fails. The freedom of man does not mean he is free to be anything other than a man. Nor does it mean that anything man does is in accordance with human nature.

I don’t think Sartre was totally off as he believed humans must take responsibility for their actions which was something distinctly human. Sartre wouldn’t say this but the imperative to take responsibility is a part of human nature. I have no problem recognizing the autonomy of people, but we should not believe that morality is autonomous and arbitrary. We are also bound by responsibility to each other just as we are bound to our family at birth.

I wouldn’t want to be a manager of a large crew where there was no common understanding of morality and one person may punch me or another kill me as a part of their self actualizing journey. Morality is much more about how we are the same rather than different. Given the dignity of work and individuality of the workers I would hope that they can freely choose to do a good job in an “authentic” manner. One doesn’t have to believe that morality is arbitrary, autonomous, subjective, and relative for people to be responsible and authentic.

Morality is not necessarily about self-interest. Some person may judge that the moral thing to do is not to act in self-interest. Sartre system only works at maintaining peace and morality if there is some deeper moral code that manifests itself as intrinsic goods by which men naturally gravitate towards. Otherwise a person in trying to forge his own authenticity may become like Hitler, and similar to Sartre we would have no basis within our moral system have grounds to judge his actions as wrong and evil. Sartre justified pacifism which does not necessary do well it protecting others on the societal level.

Jesus Christ did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it and call people to a more difficult but freer way of moral living that is in accordance with human nature. The spirit of the law was a more personal recognition between the understanding of the sacredness and gift of life coupled with a personal responsibility to act out this reality. We ought not to look upon our neighbor in lust for we have already committed adultery in our hearts. We are not only to refrain from killing, but we are not to have anger and hatred in our hearts. We are not only to refrain from bearing false witness, but we are not to swear at all and let our word be our promise. Not only shouldn’t we kill, but we shall love our neighbor as our self. We should not only covet other’s goods, but we should be satisfied with what we have.

Christ teachings are definitely a challenge to the existence of every individual. I have no problem identifying the existentialism of it; I just don’t see how you can maintain a Sartrean ethics as the foundation. Having read St. Augustine, I don’t think we was arguing that we should universalize our subjective understanding or morality as means of becoming more authentic.

For Sartre it is the lack of value and identity that will cause people to turn towards each other. I believe, and this is my phenomenology speaking, that because consciousness is bi-polar (a subject intending an object) we can only understand ourselves by experiencing the non-self/ others. However, it does not follow that there is no value present in either the self or the other. Rather this deals with the process by which we come to understand ourselves and the other in the context of community. If there is no sacredness or human dignity present in the self and the other, I don’t think Sartre would even be able to have a personal preference of one type of morality versus another. My problem is not how do we argue against the moral preferences of humanist like Sartre but how do we argue against the moral preferences of people like Hitler. Sartre’s system (or lack there of) is just not sufficient to properly form people about the intrinsic goods of human existence and why they should not be like Hitler.

It does not matter what the economic and social pressure happens to be moving the majority because slavery is either something that should be changed or should not.

Ryan--The point I was making about slavery is that no two Christians (never mind Sartre) necessarily agreed on whether it was moral, or not. All supposed "objective morality" is, in fact, sectarian. You are convinced that your sect has it exactly right, and so is everybody else. That's fine, as long as it isn't translated into the public sphere as enforceable statute law; because, then, society falls apart, as Christendom fell apart with the advent of the Reformation. This country nearly fell apart, partially due to the slavery issue. It would have fallen apart permanentely, perhaps, had the pro-slavery faction won the Civil War.Even among those theologians who insist on the reality of an "objective morality" there is no agreement on the specifics of that objective morality. Everything is, therefore, still relative to one's sect, ethnic group, subculture, etc. To be "Catholic", for instance, does not define "being in accordance with human nature." You can be in greater or lesser accordance with being Catholic, but that does not make you more or less human in the eyes of non-Catholics.

In this comment section, I have only been trying to argue against objective morality. You are the one bringing Christianity into the discussion. Even in previous threads when I argued for natural law, I didn’t bring in scripture and Christianity to ground my argument for objective morality. I am not making a theological argument for objective morality; I am making a philosophical argument. I happen to be making one that doesn’t contradict my theology but it is by no means grounded in my theology.

Whether theologians have deemed certain actions like slavery as intrinsically as right or wrong is immaterial to my argument since my argument is based neither on the history of theology nor theological understanding as such. As I have pointed out in the past, even the conditions under which slavery was to be allowed was limited because there were certain dignities of the slave that still must be recognized among thinkers like Aquinas. It is quite possible that St. Patrick in the 300s may have been the first person in history of humanity that unequivocally spoke out against all forms of slavery (as he was a slave himself). By the time of his death the slave trade industry was completely ended in Ireland. Of course, I guess he was just imposing his personal preference onto an entire culture that previously believed that slavery was justifiable.

You bring in religion into the discussion than critique it as if I was the one to bring it into discussion. I have been maintaining that all morality has to be grounded in notions of good and evil that can be practically discerned by reason from intrinsic goods of human existence.

The type of objective morality I maintain is a type of moral sense that accompanies human existence and dictates into practical action when the individual tries to discern how he/she ought to act in a particular situation keeping the good in mind that he/she is trying to accomplish. I am not objecting that moral practices do not grow organically out of different cultures with different beliefs. I am only arguing that these practices that seem relative to different cultures tend to have more in common than in difference. All cultures manifest practices and laws that consistently support the hypothesis that there are certain goods intrinsic to human existence. There may be disagreement as to which concrete actions obtained those goods, but this is where we can reason to see if certain actions reasonably conform to the end we are trying to accomplish.

The Aztecs once believed that sacrificing human life perpetuated the existence of life and therefore inherent in this action was the belief in the sanctity of life. Once it could be reasonably shown that life would continue without human sacrifice, and the gods would not destroy the world, it could be reasonably shown that human sacrifice was not an action that affirmed the dignity of life, as it was believed to be.

The fact is that we can discern within different social patterns and laws certain intrinsic goods that are being affirmed cross-culturally and use that as a starting point to building an ethical system by which actions are judged to be in reasonable compliance with the good that the action is trying to affirm or achieve. In order for the possibility of this type of dialogue, points to an objective morality build intrinsically into human nature that can be discerned through practical reason and social reflection by any human being.

This objective morality does not issue forth into obvious commands because it is based on practical reasoning. Therefore our access to it is always relative to social experience and social reflection. I am envisioning the reality that morality can be objective with expressions relative to different cultures. Yet these cultural expressions will tend to conform to intrinsic goods of human existence that can be seen as the foundation of any culture’s expression of morality.

Understanding how actions conform to notions of the good are under the scrutiny of practical reason. This is why there is always to be a continuous debate over morality. There will always be new social experience and deeper reflection. Our social understanding should continue to improve over time because all of the past and lessons of history becomes a part of the content that we can reflect upon as a part of our own social experience. However, admitting that morality requires practical reason and social reflection is not the same thing as admitting moral relativism. My theory fosters dialogue, understanding, and the importance of being open to the moral experience of other cultures as content for our own social reflection. I am stressing the importance of communal reflection, not just within my own sect of society, but cross-culturally as well.

The type of objective morality I maintain is a type of moral sense that accompanies human existence and dictates into practical action when the individual tries to discern how he/she ought to act in a particular situation keeping the good in mind that he/she is trying to accomplish.

How is that different from what was said about Sartre at 9:30 a.m. on March 26th?

Sartre does not believe in good as such, human nature, and objective morality. Sartre believes that human existence lacks value until humans create that value, whereas I am saying that human existence has value and we come to understand this. Although Sartre was humanitarian, his theory justifies subjective moral preferences they may contradict intrinsic goods. We are left without moral standards to judge morality and this becomes very problematic when some tyrant or dictator is oppressing and trespassing the dignity of other human persons. People don’t arbitrarily decide what is right or wrong but try to discern the moral code implicit in their human existence and social experience through practical reason. I am suggesting the good exists a priori and ontologically and if we do not conform our actions to this good we bring evil into the world. There is always a freedom and responsibility to discern the good, proper action, and to choose it for the right reasons. I agree with Sartre that there must be responsibility and even a consistency. I just think there are moral principles that practical reason can discern towards which we ought to use to guide our actions. The issue becomes whether morality is the figment of a person’s mind or something ingrained within their nature that becomes explicit in thought and action.

whereas I am saying that human existence has value and we come to understand this.

Sartre also says that human existence has value--once humans have identified it--and that his value can transcend the individual.In any case, the alleged existence of an a priori good has never been especially effective in preventing humans from committing atrocities, whether they believed in that a priori good, or not. So its objective existence, or non-existence, is pretty much irrelevant, relative to subjective intent and acts.

I am suggesting the good exists a priori and ontologically and if we do not conform our actions to this good we bring evil into the world.

I don't understand how you can say this without grounding that a priori good in God. Without a God in whose image man is made, man is no more the embodiment of "good" than is a three-toed sloth; he's just one more organism, interacting with the environment into which he's placed, using the tools he's born with, and those he's made. He's different (as are all the others), but his "value" relative to the others is purely self-posited and subjective.

I might add that I have no argument here that isn't directed against the concept of an enforceable "public orthodoxy." And my problem with a "public orthodoxy" is that it would violate the constitutional rights of persons not recognizing its orthodoxy, and therefore be oppressive. I.e., if it isn't grounded in God, then Sartre's argument is as good as any other, to the extent that it's interior logic is not self-contradictory.

Sartre is saying that we create meaning out of the void and then we universalize this. His ethics assumes no objective morality than acts as if there is objective morality but then does not create standards that are useful in judging moral systems other than saying that they are mere preferences that authenticate that person’s existence. Once you have argued there is no human nature of possibility for human nature you put yourself in a perplexing situation. Then one can act however one wants and there is no standard by which we can judge that action.

The problem is that a moral system rooted in Sartre’s theory cannot deem whether the social and economic pressures that makes slavery legal or those that abolish are is the proper course of action. You cannot argue whether or not the “alleged existence of an a priori good” has been effective in preventing humans from committing atrocities (you even need a standard by which to judge them atrocities). For all we know, without the existence of notions of good there may have been much more atrocities. It may very well have been moral relativism and the personal denial of intrinsic goods throughout history that lead to atrocities. These scenarios fall into the realm of speculation.

As for the case of morality being relative to subjective intent and acts, I would also add situation to that. Three factors determine whether an specific act is morally good or bad: the nature of the act itself, the situation, and the subjective intention of the person. In other words, what you do; when, where, how you do it; and why you do it. These different dimensions to moral action must be factored into our understanding as well. I have no problem with action being relative to persons, or a healthy understanding of morality being related to individuals within particular contexts with particular understandings and particular motives. My problem is the conclusion that there is no universally binding moral norms that can be known through means of using practical reason to reflect socially on our experience and naturally good tendencies of human existence.

If you want to trace the good that naturally exists in the world to some source or principle outside of human nature, you are getting into metaphysics. Personally I think it more beneficial to develop a metaphysics before getting into ethical theory in terms of being theoretical. But even this metaphysical theory should begin by assuming the existence of God but start with our experience of being. Maybe this hints as to why many people tend to have beliefs in some kind of supernatural source of everything that exists. If you want to use the presence of the moral notion of good and evil to conclude the existence of some kind of divine presence or image of good that accounts for the dignity of human life, fine, but that is something outside of the scope of what I am currently arguing. The value is subjective in the sense that it is discerned by a subject but that does not mean it does not correspond to reality. Of course, this would be getting into epistemology that Sartre refuses to entertain.

I might add that most of what I’m arguing tends to come up naturally in your “public orthodoxy.” I have not argued for a “public orthodoxy” that would limit people’s freedom, but guide it. To allow people to know that they can pursue natural goods of their human existence that may happen to be protected by the constitution although it does not have to be protected and depending on interpretations of the constitution may not even be believed by many to be protected. Also, the constitution does not interpret itself, but is interpreted and created by people. I’m also concerned with what guiding principles we will use to continuously amend and evolve in our understanding of a just ordering of society and what constitutional rights we ought to allow to people.

Sartre’s argument is not good as another because dictatorship and tyranny is not as good as a system as democracy. Moral relativism of Sartre’s type only works in a peaceful society if people happen to have the humanistic tendencies of Sartre. But these humanistic tendencies already assume some kind of intrinsic goods of human existence that become explicit in experience and can be reasonably shown to be good. You can have a highly consistent untrue theory. The part in which the theory is untrue can have dire consequences when it becomes time to judge which action is just as is the case with slavery. Or you can have a inconsistent true theory as I would argue is the case with natural law applications that allowed for atrocities. The problem wasn’t there understanding of good but there reasoned application by which they believed certain actions were inconformity with those goods. For example, the activity of slavery is not a practical way to act in conformity of acknowledging the dignity of the human person. What I want to discern is a highly consistent true theory that is both rooted in reality and guides me practically in my moral actions and can be used as a standard to understand and enter into dialogue with others.

What I want to discern is a highly consistent true theory that is both rooted in reality and guides me practically in my moral actions and can be used as a standard to understand and enter into dialogue with others

I fail to see how any person lacking "the humanistic tendencies of Sartre" would go along with any public orthodoxy founded upon an a priori good that he didn't like, for any reason other than fear of punishment. If he's a humanist, Sartre's existentialism will work for both him and his community. If he's not, then he will do what he pleases, to the extent that he can get away with it. Sartre's humanism must be chosen by the moral agent; it is not an object of faith in some objective reality that is attested by authority, but not immediately intuited by the subjective mind.Once the Sartrean "good" has been identified and chosen, the moral agent must act according to his choice or be "inauthentic" (a salaud in his own eyes. He will not come under this self-criticism for failing to do what he is told to do by an authority which he does not respect, according to a moral principle which he does not subjectively discern as valid in his case.Either he fears his own self-shaming, or he fears public humiliation and punishment, or he fears God. What he does not fear is transgressing some abstract notion of "human nature.'

“I fail to see how any person lacking "the humanistic tendencies of Sartre" would go along with any public orthodoxy founded upon an a priori good that he didn't like, for any reason other than fear of punishment.”

So our standard for morality should be found in the person of Sartre, my goodness, that seems so much more reasonable than what I was suggesting. All this complaining that we can’t base morality on Christianity and so you base it on Jean-Paul Sartre. How about we stick with universal human tendencies.

I’m curious, upon which grounds would you punish someone who didn’t conform to your theory. If the access to these moral laws are not natural and some sense universally accessible, what right to you have to impose your subjective morality unto others. If these goods of human existence are not universal, how can you justly punish any person for not conforming to them. Sartre’s existentialism only establishes a personal creed but we need a common creed, not to a limited group of people, but one that is reasonable for every person and by which every person can be treated justly and judged justly. If you want to pretend that Sartrean existentialism can do that for you, you are mistaken.

I have offered a list of concrete goods of human nature that are in conformity with human tendency. The reason why the conversation has been abstract is because you have refused to examine whether or not the basic goods intrinsic to human existence that I have identified are really basic goods. Rather you have been avoiding this conversation, you are offering the abstract notion of “human nature” by going into Sartrean existentialism. There are many reasons why a person might act immoral and we need a moral distinctions that can deal with this as well. It could be a problem with reasoning the consistency between a good and the means to achieving this good. It could be a problem with the will by which a person has a disordered desire to go against some good and willfully choose evil (as Sartre says this would encompasses being inauthentic). A person can be forced to do something against his or her will. Possibly a person lacks the formation or the intellectual power to see something as immoral such as somebody mentally handicapped. And the list goes on. The point is the three dimensions I mentioned in my last comment (the nature of the act, the motive of the moral agent, and the situation) are important distinctions that help in understanding morality, and these are distinctions that are not afforded by moral relativism.

So our standard for morality should be found in the person of Sartre, my goodness, that seems so much more reasonable than what I was suggesting.

You obstinately continue to ignore the point that I'm making, which is: Sartre's standard, the Vatican's standard, a Calvinist standard, a Buddhist standard, a Boy Scout standard, even a WWWtW standard, so long as they don't impinge on the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" that the Founders first declared themselves free to pursue prior to establishing as law each individual's liberty to pursue them in his own way, must be allowed to coexist. There can be no "one size fits all" basis for public morality in America. The WWWtW authors will have to be content with following their formulations themselves, leaving the rest of us out of it.If a philosopher can show all of these moralities to be founded in "natural law," so be it. If Sartre says they're not, so be that, too. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the individual be free to choose the moral basis which he prefers, and that his choice does not impinge upon my choice. I personally would prefer a morality based entirely on revealed Truth as presented in the New Testament.

I’m curious, upon which grounds would you punish someone who didn’t conform to your theory.

You haven't listened to a word I've said, if you can ask that question. This is exactly what I was asking of the WWWtW authors in the post that spun off into this post. And I was asking it in order to condemn it. You own Aztec example pretty much shows that, if "goodness" is written on the human heart as "natural law" the mind of man has no direct access to it; it's not immediately intuitive; it must be learned by trial and error, over time. Or, just maybe, it's not written anywhere at all and must either be delivered as grace, or chosen by the subjective reasons of individual moral agents.In either case, it comes first to an individual who must then use reasonable persuasion to convince his cohort to accept it as the morality of the group. It is absurd to believe that each peson will discover the same "object truth" "out there" somewhere, and begin to act upon it spontaneously and in chorus with the rest of humanity.

(the nature of the act, the motive of the moral agent, and the situation)

That's a perfect description of a "situational ethics" which is morally relative, by definition. The morality of the act is dependent upon the current situation faced by the moral agent, rather than the nature of the act itself: e.g., sometimes birth control is good; sometimes it's not.

“You obstinately continue to ignore the point that I'm making, which is: Sartre's standard, the Vatican's standard, a Calvinist standard, a Buddhist standard, a Boy Scout standard, even a WWWtW standard, so long as they don't impinge on the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" that the Founders first declared themselves free to pursue prior to establishing as law each individual's liberty to pursue them in his own way, must be allowed to coexist.”

And once again you ignore my point. Once you look at different standards and say that different standards are good and applicable as long as they don’t impinge on the standards set by the constitution you have set up an immovable standard. I’m questioning why the constitution. You can cite different standards but you still have another standard by which you judge all the other standards. Why? Because each individual having a certain amount of freedom and autonomy for the rational life, education, and religious beliefs is good. Are these to be the goods and foundation upon which we judge ever other theory? Either way, you are still going to some standard. Freedom does not create values, because freedom already presupposes values. Oddly enough I have identified these as intrinsic goods to human nature without going to the Constitution. I can justify acting according to these goods without going to the Constitution or some arbitrary standard, but by going to human nature itself.

You say there is no “one size fits all” but this is what you are trying to do for public morality in America with the Constitution. And this should matter because truth matters. The last time a checked most people don’t believe in Santa Clause just because it makes them behave more morally. Somebody should not be a theist or atheist just because it enables them feel good about themselves. There is an ethical dimension to our knowing. All of our sciences constantly revise their hypothesis at the prospect of conforming to reality, why shouldn’t our ethical theories as well. Be honest, the reason why you do not want to follow the authors of WWWtW is because their formulations are simply not true. And you know it is not true because it effects other people in a way it shouldn’t. Certain moral standards should be rejected because they are neither good nor true. And they should be rejected passionately like fascism and Nazism.

“You own Aztec example pretty much shows that, if "goodness" is written on the human heart as "natural law" the mind of man has no direct access to it; it's not immediately intuitive; it must be learned by trial and error, over time. Or, just maybe, it's not written anywhere at all and must either be delivered as grace, or chosen by the subjective reasons of individual moral agents.”

My Aztec example showed that they action of human sacrifice was believed by them to preserve the good of human life and prevent the gods from destroying all life. The Aztec’s believed the gods feed of the life force, blood, of the offerings. They did have direct access to knowing the goodness of human existence. The trial and error was to use practical reason to show that they didn’t need to sacrifice human life to perpetuate the good of human life. It had to be shown that their supernatural belief was untrue and that human sacrifice does not serve to perpetuate the existence of the cosmos. My argument has been that the secondary precepts, namely application of intrinsic goods into concrete situations are not always immediately intuitive. We can take other examples if you prefer, just offer one.

(the nature of the act, the motive of the moral agent, and the situation)

“That's a perfect description of a "situational ethics" which is morally relative, by definition. The morality of the act is dependent upon the current situation faced by the moral agent, rather than the nature of the act itself”

I never denied that situation plays a role in determining the morality of an action. It just is not the only determinate. Your word play to devalue the role of the motive of the moral agent and the nature of the act is nonsense. Both play an important role, and both are often used in trying people in court cases. Morality is partly, not wholly determined by the situation. You can have a highly consistent untrue theory.

“And this statement can't be applied to the theory of an "object morality"--why?"

It can be applied to a theory of “object morality” and if that theory is shown to not be true to human nature and reality, then that theory should be discarded.

Because the constitution is a secular basis for a set of laws which can be applied to anybody in the society without forcing them to act in a manner contrary to their own belief system. It explicitly does not establish a public orthodoxy. It may allow things that you don't like, but it does not force you to do those things yourself.

Your word play to devalue the role of the motive of the moral agent and the nature of the act is nonsense.

What is sonsense is first trying to label me an existentialist, and then in the next breath saying that I deny the role of the moral agent and the motive. That would be a cute trick, indeed, wouldn't it?What I'm actually saying, of course, is that the moral agent and the motive are of primary importance. According to Jesus, you don't even have to actually do the evil act, but only want to do it to be guilty of it.

It can be applied to a theory of “object morality”...

Yes, and by the same token, it can be applied to a theory of "Natural Law." If it is not stipulated to be grounded in God, it is quite possible to say that it is nothing more than a morally-neutral collection of observations, some of which are known to be factual, and others only assumed to be factual. Without a transcendant Creator, empirical knowledge and mathematics is the only provable ground of anything that can be known.

“Because the constitution is a secular basis for a set of laws which can be applied to anybody in the society without forcing them to act in a manner contrary to their own belief system. It explicitly does not establish a public orthodoxy. It may allow things that you don't like, but it does not force you to do those things yourself.”

You are saying that the constitution allows people a certain amount of freedom and autonomy in terms of their beliefs and actions. This means that you value freedom and you believe that the constitution upholds these values. If the constitution didn’t uphold these values, I would imagine that you would be against the constitution. Therefore the constitution cannot ultimately be your standard since it your trust it in is because it upholds certain goods. Does this mean that those who are not born into a society that has a constitution like ours are just out of luck? How are they suppose to order their society? These are the types of questions an ethical system should be able to answer. I am asking why make the constitution the end all be all. You seemed to have judged the constitution as a worthy document to provide the foundation of a just government and just society. But why? This is the deeper question you cannot answer without using some type of standard that is not the constitution.

“What is sonsense is first trying to label me an existentialist, and then in the next breath saying that I deny the role of the moral agent and the motive. That would be a cute trick, indeed, wouldn't it?”

Good thing I didn’t label you as an existentialist. I did critic your use of Sartre, but I did not label you as an existentialist (if you find anywhere in this conversation that I called you an existentialist please let me know and I’ll recant). I did say that I have a personal preference towards existentialist thought. As for saying you deny the role of the moral agent, once again, an accusation I never made. I said your word play devalued the role of the motive of the moral agent and the nature of the act. I provided you with the classical Aristotelian understanding of what constitutes the morality of an act: the nature of the act, the motive of the moral agent, and the situation. All three being important, and you responded by saying the following:

“That's a perfect description of a "situational ethics" which is morally relative, by definition. The morality of the act is dependent upon the current situation faced by the moral agent, rather than the nature of the act itself.”

While I highlighted the situation, moral agent, and the nature of the act it self, you responded by saying that these distinctions somehow show that the primary issue is one of situation and not the nature of the act itself. So yes, I consider this as a word play that devalues the role of the motive of the moral agent and the nature of the act while exalting the factor of the situation. If you have another explanation of your response, I’ll be glad to hear it.

“What I'm actually saying, of course, is that the moral agent and the motive are of primary importance. According to Jesus, you don't even have to actually do the evil act, but only want to do it to be guilty of it.”

Even in the instance of wanting to do an evil act, it is still a desire towards an act of a particular nature. Hence, the nature of the act still comes into play when desiring or intending a certain act even if the moral agent refrains from act. I think the moral agent and motive are important as well, without either there would be no morality, but they do not determine the whole of morality. In other words, I think the nature of the action, the intention/motive of the moral agent, and the situation are three distinct and irreducible dimensions of every and any moral act; none of these factors can be removed or replaced. Each contain a certain amount of explanatory power that helps us understand morality.

“If it is not stipulated to be grounded in God, it is quite possible to say that it is nothing more than a morally-neutral collection of observations, some of which are known to be factual, and others only assumed to be factual. Without a transcendant Creator, empirical knowledge and mathematics is the only provable ground of anything that can be known.”

It sounds like you are the one trying to ground all ethical knowledge in God or at least argue the role of being a skeptic. If this discussion has to digress to discussing how to get around Hume’s fact-value distinction so be it. I maintain that there is an ethical dimension to all knowing, and I am prepared to argue a philosophical system that establishes this fact. I have, for the most part, attempted to avoid getting into a discussion on epistemology. If there is a human nature than can be found from practical experience and reason, then why not derive our ethics from this without having to posit the existence of God.

So yes, I consider this as a word play that devalues the role of the motive of the moral agent and the nature of the act while exalting the factor of the situation. If you have another explanation of your response, I’ll be glad to hear it.

It was my understanding that an objectively evil act was never to be the means of even a good end. If so, the moral agent's current situation is irrelevant; e.g. one can't use a condom, even if the end is the prevention of the AIDS epidemic.

It sounds like you are the one trying to ground all ethical knowledge in God

Can it be that you've finally listened to me? Or is it just that you've "caught me out" saying what I've been saying all along?

If there is a human nature than can be found from practical experience and reason, then why not derive our ethics from this without having to posit the existence of God.

Because the existentialists are correct in saying that if there is no God (I guess they would say "since" there is no God), there is also no universal "human nature" in the ethical sense. It must happen the other way around: first man must identify and posit values; from this, then, he can define what it is that establishes an "authentic" existence. The values and/or the authenticity are not a priori, but man-made.Since, however, we are made in the image of God, God's values are our values--from His lips to our ears.All of that said, to establish an enforceable "public orthodoxy" based on even an ecumenical set of religious statutes would be to violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution and would inevitably destabalize the most stable (thus the freest) society on earth. These values must be held privately, not publicly.

“It was my understanding that an objectively evil act was never to be the means of even a good end.”

This is true, because both the ends and means to the end ought be good. Otherwise you have very evil things done in the name of good ends. This has happened in the past and has been very disastrous. I should not seek to preserve my own life if it requires me to kill a bunch of innocent people. The end cannot justify the means. The reason is that our ethics must be consistent in seeking right action and good action; this is especially important in regards to the means. If all ethical knowledge is grounded in God, than so is the constitution. I don’t see how this helps your case. Accordingly the constitution is only good in providing a framework of ordering a society in as much as it is rooted in the ethics of God. You have maintained that the Constitution is a standard by which to judge public orthodoxy. In order for this to be the standard there must be something good about it. You still haven’t addressed this issue. What accounts for the goodness of the constitution? I am not asking for the explanation that it allows there to be freedom among people of different beliefs, but why is this freedom desirable and good. You must be able to explain this without using the constitution or your religious beliefs. If the explanation is found in neither the constitution nor religious beliefs, then maybe the explanation resides in the recognition of some intrinsic good of human nature. I have maintain that we can have ethics without positing God’s existence.

“Because the existentialists are correct in saying that if there is no God (I guess they would say "since" there is no God), there is also no universal "human nature" in the ethical sense. It must happen the other way around: first man must identify and posit values; from this, then, he can define what it is that establishes an "authentic" existence. The values and/or the authenticity are not a priori, but man-made.”

The problem is our ethical theory should not start out positing or denying the existence of God. Our ethics and epistemology should not begin by assuming atheism or theism for this becomes circular. The theist like the atheist can still justify any action. The atheist by denying human nature and the theist by claiming some gnostic divine command theory. Rather our ethics should begin by trying to practically discern the naturally good tendencies of human nature and act according to these intrinsic goods. We are not born with explicit knowledge of God’s existence or non-existence, but we are born with a moral notion and ability to use our practical reason to determine natural goods and act according the them. I agree with the insistence of starting from experience, our natural tendencies, and practical reason, but this method does not yet show why we must assume there is no universal “human nature” if moral notions and intrinsic goods are found to be held in common at some deeper level. Cross-culturally moral systems have more in common than difference.

“All of that said, to establish an enforceable "public orthodoxy" based on even an ecumenical set of religious statutes would be to violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution and would inevitably destabalize the most stable (thus the freest) society on earth. These values must be held privately, not publicly.”

Good thing I am not advocating a “public orthodoxy” based on religious statutes. There are many values that can be held publically: freedom, truth, education, life, family, health, religious freedom, etc. Show me a society that directly devalues and acts against these natural goods and I will show you a society falling apart. It is a simple truth that there are some values that a society must hold in common in order to thrive as a just society.

If all ethical knowledge is grounded in God, than so is the constitution. I don’t see how this helps your case.

It helps the case, not of me, but of its authors, by prohibiting any one group's version of God's will from becoming public law, thus oppressing the beliefs of every other group.

In order for this to be the standard there must be something good about it. You still haven’t addressed this issue.

I've been addressing nothing BUT this issue. What's good about the constitution is that it allows for nearly completely, universal, freedom of conscience within the framework of a body of law that protects individual rights, and maintains social stability, without oppressing any minority.

The problem is our ethical theory should not start out positing or denying the existence of God.

But, for some it does.

...we are born with a moral notion and ability to use our practical reason to determine natural goods and act according the them.

That is a matter of conjecture. It is very easy to show that "natural goods" vary greatly from culture to culture, which would seem to indicate that they are learned behavioral attitudes, not innate ones.

Cross-culturally moral systems have more in common than difference.

I find that to be a statement that is just not supported by the facts. Murder, theft, rape, cannibalism, human sacrifice, infanticide, are all permissable, and even mandatory in some cultures, under some conditions. Even the incest taboo--which is perhaps the most wide-spread "Natural Law" is often excepted in the case of a royal class, as in ancient Egypt. While all cultures have some sense of the transcendant, how this is understood varies wildly.

It is a simple truth that there are some values that a society must hold in common in order to thrive as a just society.

Right. Your list covers most of what's meant by "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" I would say. That's what the constitution protects. So what is it, do you suppose, that the WWWtW authors think is lacking that must be compensated for by an additional "public orthodoxy?"

You said: “It helps the case, not of me, but of its authors, by prohibiting any one group's version of God's will from becoming public law, thus oppressing the beliefs of every other group.”

Hence, we should be wary of any gnostic and arbitrary divine will command that justify people acting against human nature. As well as atheistic ideologies that try to commit atrocities through the will to power because they claim there is no human nature and therefore no objective morals.

I said: “In order for this to be the standard there must be something good about it. You still haven’t addressed this issue.”You said: “I've been addressing nothing BUT this issue. What's good about the constitution is that it allows for nearly completely, universal, freedom of conscience within the framework of a body of law that protects individual rights, and maintains social stability, without oppressing any minority.”

You have not addressed the issue of which I am referring. Are these goods valuable because they are found in the constitution or are they found in the constitution because they are natural goods.

I said: “The problem is our ethical theory should not start out positing or denying the existence of God.”Let me clarify my position a bit. I have no problem with God in an ethical theory. I only believe that the morality that we hold everybody responsible for in the public sphere must be able to be naturally discern as good without positing the existence of God. I find problem for those who want to kill innocent people in the name of God.

I said: “Cross-culturally moral systems have more in common than difference.”You said: “I find that to be a statement that is just not supported by the facts. Murder, theft, rape, cannibalism, human sacrifice, infanticide, are all permissable, and even mandatory in some cultures, under some conditions. Even the incest taboo--which is perhaps the most wide-spread "Natural Law" is often excepted in the case of a royal class, as in ancient Egypt. While all cultures have some sense of the transcendant, how this is understood varies wildly.”

How about you give me a concrete example that you would like to examine and we will address it? We must look at a culture’s internal reasons for what they consider mandatory and see if there is an underlining principle they are trying to uphold. I have been sticking with the Aztec example, one that you have not refuted, because I spend a summer in Mexico history studying the Aztecs and their culture. My point has been that although the Aztecs had human sacrifice and even cannibalism, they reasoned that these actions somehow benefited a the natural good of life and existence. There can always be discourse (which should involve reason) over which actions achieve the natural good, but I am arguing that certain natural goods are universal and that society must hold some values in common in order to thrive as a just society. I think it is not very easy to show that “natural goods” vary greatly from culture to culture. It is easy to show how means of obtaining these goods vary but this is an issue of practical reason, not of the natural goods themselves.

You said: “Your list covers most of what's meant by "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" I would say. That's what the constitution protects. So what is it, do you suppose, that the WWWtW authors think is lacking that must be compensated for by an additional "public orthodoxy?"”

So I guess there are a particular set of values that you would want the constitution to protect and if it didn’t protect these values you would opt for a better constitution. Thus there must be a standard that allows you to judge the constitution that is not found in the constitution itself. How about a thought experiment? Imagine that we currently did not have the constitution and were trying to create one. What moral standards would you use to make sure the constitution ordered society justly? This is the question you keep avoiding. If the WWWtW authors are wrong we need to be able to reasonably show them that what they are doing or teaching is inconsistent with a natural good intrinsic to human existence. We need to be able to argue that life, family, health, freedom, education, religious freedom, etc are all goods that exist within human nature and that their actions are not affirming the goods. This standard has to exist whether there is a constitution or not. The issue is whether is either some natural law standard by which you are justified to use the constitution as the basis of a public morality or if your insistence on putting your faith in the constitution is unjustified.

How about you give me a concrete example that you would like to examine and we will address it?

The Aztecs are fine. But it would seem that they prove my point, rather than yours. What they saw as good and necessary, we see as abhorrent.

Thus there must be a standard that allows you to judge the constitution that is not found in the constitution itself.

"We find these truths be self-evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator...etc. Although the Founders were against the establishment of any state religion, they still grounded their philosophy in a Creator God. He may have been a deus absconditus for most of them--but he was necessary.

I have been offering the same list over and over again. I formally defined this list as the primary precepts and it was derived through practical reason by reflecting on what humans have in common with all substances, animals, and particularly as humans by virtue of reason. This list includes life/existence, health/nourishment, reproduction, education, community/social life, life of reason, freedom, truth, family, religious freedom. Pretty much the things I have been arguing that can be publically held and form the foundation of a just society. If one of these values strikes you as somehow exclusive or unreasonable please critique it.

“The Aztecs are fine. But it would seem that they prove my point, rather than yours. What they saw as good and necessary, we see as abhorrent.”

If you understand their supernatural justification for human sacrifice of the Aztecs you realize that they have been socialized and conditioned to believe that they must appease the gods with the life force of blood that would in essence perpetuate life and keep the world from being destroyed. Human sacrifice was seen as good because it was believed to be necessary. Therefore, even in light of what may seem abhorrent is a principled belief in the value of life. Otherwise they would have not appeased the gods and allowed all life to be destroyed. Using reason and scientific understanding we realize that it is their supernatural understanding that was unrealistic, not their valuing life. We can reasonably demonstrate that sacrificing human life to the gods is not necessary to perpetuate existence. Another question that I would be interested in situations like that of the Aztecs is at what point human sacrifice was introduced. When did this moral depravity enter into the social consciousness of the Aztecs by which it was inherited in later generations as a natural understanding of their cosmos? How was it established that human sacrifice was a valid way to value life in general? This may be because of supernatural belief, a type of vision of a spiritual leader, a will to power by those in power, a way to exert control, etc. At some point human sacrifice didn’t exist and it was introduced with the idea that it was a practical way to bring about a desired result. I think the real depravity of the Aztecs very much begins here. However, even generations later it can be reasonably shown that human sacrifice is not necessary to continue the goodness of life and it acts contradictory to the goodness of life. Once it becomes an unnecessary evil it follows that this practice can and should be abolished.

Even in societies when one or more of the basic goods I have identified are deprived from some individuals, I don’t think there has been a case in a society where it has been deprived from every individual for someone always lives at the top of the chain. These natural goods exist even if tyrants deprive them from others. It is because of these natural goods that the tyrant ought to be overthrown. I do not think you can point to a single society where these goods are not present somewhere and in some form, even if those in power try to legally deprive others from achieving freely practicing these goods.

I said: “Thus there must be a standard that allows you to judge the constitution that is not found in the constitution itself.”

You said: "We find these truths be self-evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator...etc. Although the Founders were against the establishment of any state religion, they still grounded their philosophy in a Creator God. He may have been a deus absconditus for most of them--but he was necessary.”

The truths are self-evident, which means that they can be discerned through reason as evident by all persons. That is natural law language. One does not need to believe that God created humanity to believe that all humans are equal. The founders may have ascribed the metaphysical cause of these truths being inscribed on human nature to God but that does not change anything. The constitution was an exercise in practical reason, not a theological ethical system.

We can reasonably demonstrate that sacrificing human life to the gods is not necessary to perpetuate existence.

And, if the Aztecs were responding to some innate Natural Law, why could not they have realized that sacrificing human life is not necessary to perpetuate existence?

The constitution was an exercise in practical reason, not a theological ethical system.

Fine. I'll stipulate your point. So I will ask again, one last time: what then could the WWWtW group possibly add to that, which would constitute a "public orthodoxy" and not be inviolation of the establishement clause? And if it were to be found that their public orthodoxy undermines the Constitution, would they not then be guilty of a form of sedition very much like the one that their public orthodoxy is meant to forestall?

I said: “We can reasonably demonstrate that sacrificing human life to the gods is not necessary to perpetuate existence.”

You said: “And, if the Aztecs were responding to some innate Natural Law, why could not they have realized that sacrificing human life is not necessary to perpetuate existence?”

I can only speculate, and as I mentioned earlier this is the kind of thing that interest me- how certain depravities first become a part of people’s social consciousness. Why was the first human sacrifice performed? Possibly the first sacrifices were some form of corporeal punishment seeing how many of the sacrifices were of the captured enemies of other tribes. Maybe the need to put people at ease by creating some myth narrative that allows them to believe that they have some control over their well-being. They could have had a very improper understanding of how the world worked (it turns out that sacrificing human blood does not keep the sun rising). Perhaps the answer is a mystical as evil itself and may be related the question of why Hitler thought exterminating all the Jews would solve the problems of Germany.

Whichever the reason for the ‘original sins’ of a society that distort the social conscience of future generation, natural law does not override free will. Sometimes people selfishly focus on the importance of self-preservation over the existence of others to the neglect of the community. This leads to people ignoring the reality that others have the same dignity as themselves. Also many people do opt for a speculative and even supernatural explanation for things that will trump practical reason acting consistently in conformity with natural goods. The problem is not the first precepts (naturally intrinsic goods of human existence) but that other factors can complicate the application of the first precepts into concrete situations. If you remember, the second precepts involved using practical reason to try to figure out how to pursue the natural goods (first precepts) in concrete situation. For example: religious fanatics who will commit suicide at the prospect of gaining some kind of eternal award believes that the type of life to be gained is a greater quality of life than the life of earthly existence, but it is still life that is valued. Plus there are other psychological factors that may cloud a person’s judgment.

I have taken the position that whatever goods that are found within human nature will not contradict the goods revealed by religion, for God is the author of both the book of nature and the book of revelation. People can become convicted of things that are not reasonable. When natural goods of human existence are replaced with supernatural understandings that negate the natural good, people may use practical reason to pragmatically bring about the perceived good whether this involves killing the infidels or drinking the Kool-Aid. I think practical reason (consistency) should be applied to the teachings of one’s religion as well as the natural goods of human existence to see if they can co-exist.

I said: “The constitution was an exercise in practical reason, not a theological ethical system.”

You said: “Fine. I'll stipulate your point. So I will ask again, one last time: what then could the WWWtW group possibly add to that, which would constitute a "public orthodoxy" and not be inviolation of the establishement clause? And if it were to be found that their public orthodoxy undermines the Constitution, would they not then be guilty of a form of sedition very much like the one that their public orthodoxy is meant to forestall?”

I never said that WWWtW could add anything that would constitute a just and good “public orthodoxy.” Rather, you have disagreed with them from position of the constitution while I have disagreed on principle of natural law. I understood this conversation to be primarily about what exactly should constitute a “public orthodoxy” if not the constitution and not moral relativism. Russel Kirk and WWWtW wanted to outlaw living wills which would prevent people from being allowed to die a natural death in some situations and I gave a natural law argument against this in a previous comment. As I said before, I do not see how dying a natural death can be suicide and abolishing a living will can be just. If you they could reasonably prove that dying a natural death is suicide (an oxymoron) and abolishing a living will is unjust, then they would have a case. If the Constitution is good so far as it conforms to natural law as I maintain, then WWWtW would be guilty of a form of sedition in as much that their actions undermines the natural goods of others and thereby the constitutional rights of those people. If the United States had a Constitution that was not just, the there would be a proper place to critique it.

Whichever the reason for the ‘original sins’ of a society that distort the social conscience of future generation, natural law does not override free will.

Therefore, it's not effective. Therefore, either revealed religion, or some form of secular moral evaluation (such as Sartre's) is necessary. Even if there were such a thing as natural law-minus-God, it would be irrelevant to morality, unless it jump-started morality spontaneously, which, clearly, it does not.

Perhaps the answer is a mystical as evil itself and may be related the question of why Hitler thought exterminating all the Jews would solve the problems of Germany.

Catholics, having access, presumably, to both revealed truth and natural law, expelled all the Jews who wouldn't sumbit to sincere forced conversions, along with all the Muslims, from the Iberian penisula, after having tortured and killed many of them. Hitler had no uniqueness in terms of systematic, organized, Jew-hating. I still don't see how showing that natural law doesn't do anything proves that natural law is a reality. It seems to me that revealed truth is somewhat effective, as is existentialism, in actually affecting the behavior of individuals. You seem to claim that natural law is "there," but that it if it ever functions, it does so only coincidentally. In fact, natural law would seem to be constituted entirely in the word-games of philosophers.

All of that said, I agree with your final assessment of WWWtW, as far as it goes. However, I have to point out that, once again, natural law is irrelevant. It is precisely their fervent defense of natural law that they seek to follow in outlawing natural wills. You, while defending natural law with equal fervor, think they are wrong. Natural law is utterly impotent as a foundation for human morality, as no two people can agree on its tenets. It all seems to depend upon what professor one had for Ethics 101.

Also, most of your list of natural goods are pursued instinctually. Believe me, my cats know that food is good without the capacity to reason it out. Some of the things on your list (such as education) are clearly not universally valued, where universality is not founded in convention and necessity. I don't think you've made your case for the ontological reality of natural law with that list.

I said: “Whichever the reason for the ‘original sins’ of a society that distort the social conscience of future generation, natural law does not override free will.”

You said: “Therefore, it's not effective. Therefore, either revealed religion, or some form of secular moral evaluation (such as Sartre's) is necessary. Even if there were such a thing as natural law-minus-God, it would be irrelevant to morality, unless it jump-started morality spontaneously, which, clearly, it does not.”

You seem to be ignoring the fact that natural law does not override free will. In fact no law does. Just because we have something innate that guides our moral conscience to which we can access and try to discern proper action through practical reason is no guarantee that people will do the right thing. Our standard for morality should not be its effectiveness in controlling people, otherwise the implementation of morality by brute force may be our best bet. I would argue that the will to power could be equally effective as revealed religion or some form of secular moral evaluation. Rather truth should be the standard of which we judge our morality. Is it true?

Secondly, you do not know whether or not natural law is more or less ineffective than other moral systems. Many people defy revealed religion and secular moral evaluation, does that render them ineffective as well? It may be ineffective to tell people not to kill innocent people as many people still do it anyway. Just because such a law is ineffective by your standards does not mean it should not be a law.

Both your suggestions begin with taking moral standards that are some point arbitrary to one person and imposing them on others until it becomes a part of the group conscience. Both presuppose that others will willfully accept the theory as their own. My theory suggest that hopefully they will only accept theories about how they should act if it is in accordance with natural goods of which they can individually be aware. If the constitution is not good we should reject it. I am setting up standards about what kind of actions would be permissible in any moral theory.

In fact, natural law can be more easily accepted by everyone than Sartre’s theory because natural law is something that exist because of human nature. Natural law is based on objective values of those goods I have listed rather than the subjective standard of morality based upon one person, Sartre, from whom everyone is expected to follow suit. For Sartre to subjectively construct a consistent true theory of morality suggest objective values that he can individually discern. You may like his theory because of his humanitarian concerns, but then you are accepting his theory because of something you have in common rather than what you have different. Natural law would be better than morality based on religion alone because it does not depend upon receiving divine revelation or adhering to overtly religious dogma. It would seem to me that an insistence on Natural law would be the best option because it invites everyone into the discernment process. It emphasizes our common dignity and community.

Your insistence on a spontaneous jump-started morality is nonsense. Do you want God or a theory that takes away people’s free will so they all act morally? I never maintained that right action was known immediately. Our own subjectively is not known immediately but depends upon experience, social interaction, and reflection. It would make sense that the discernment of natural law necessitates experience of our naturally good tendencies, social interaction and reflection. I would say that our understanding of mathematics, gravity, and scientific laws in general are not spontaneous but discerned through experience and the use of reason. Similarly struggle with math and deny scientific laws despite the evidence and the availability of their rational process through which to test the theory. Many people deny good scientific theories because they put much more stock into the explanatory power of their supernatural understanding. This relates to my conversation why people may ignore the natural law. The person through willful ignorance or through willing some other explanation replaces the natural good intrinsic to human existence with some other speculative end.

I said: “Perhaps the answer is a mystical as evil itself and may be related the question of why Hitler thought exterminating all the Jews would solve the problems of Germany.”

You said: “Catholics, having access, presumably, to both revealed truth and natural law, expelled all the Jews who wouldn't sumbit to sincere forced conversions, along with all the Muslims, from the Iberian penisula, after having tortured and killed many of them. Hitler had no uniqueness in terms of systematic, organized, Jew-hating. I still don't see how showing that natural law doesn't do anything proves that natural law is a reality. It seems to me that revealed truth is somewhat effective, as is existentialism, in actually affecting the behavior of individuals. You seem to claim that natural law is "there," but that it if it ever functions, it does so only coincidentally. In fact, natural law would seem to be constituted entirely in the word-games of philosophers.”

And guess what. Being Catholic does not make you a saint or insure that you will act morally. As a Christian I do not remember anywhere in scriptures where God ensured that humanity would remain faithful to him. In fact quite the opposite, God promised to remain faithful to humanity even when humanity does not remain faithful to God. Natural law does not negate free will. Pointing to evil does not negate natural law, but uses a standard by which to call certain actions as inconsistent with the natural law. Your points does more to confirm the existence of natural law, namely objective standards to judge and guide morality, than it does to deny it. Socrates believed that if one knew the truth that people would act accordingly. That simply is not true. Free will can choose to reject good and truth, even Catholics and Christians. The history of the Spanish Inquisition and treatment of non-Catholics on the Iberian peninsula is a lengthy topic so I’ll refrain from saying too much about it here, but the depravity in the actions of Catholics do not deny Natural law. Rather you ability to recognize their actions as immoral tells me more about your ability to apply morality objectively.

Since Natural law resides in human nature it does not have a will of its own. It can only effect individuals in as much as individuals will allow it. If individuals act against it I do believe that this is a form of inauthenticity. That is the existential connection. People must personally accept the morality discerned from their nature. They must choose to act according to the natural law and human nature. The fact people must choose to act according to natural law puts it existentially in the position of any proposition whether another person’s moral proposition, or a religions moral proposition. The main difference is that the Natural law can be discerned with in and does not depend upon a religion or other people having the right moral claims. Natural law sets up an internal standard and personal obligation to seek right or wrong and act accordingly but it does not necessitate that the person will do so.

You said: “All of that said, I agree with your final assessment of WWWtW, as far as it goes. However, I have to point out that, once again, natural law is irrelevant. It is precisely their fervent defense of natural law that they seek to follow in outlawing living wills. You, while defending natural law with equal fervor, think they are wrong. Natural law is utterly impotent as a foundation for human morality, as no two people can agree on its tenets. It all seems to depend upon what professor one had for Ethics 101.”

If Natural law is irrelevant, then so is your assessment of WWWtW. One can fervently defend a particular application of natural law and be wrong. You only need to look at the first precepts and see if WWWtW is acting in accordance with the first precepts. It is on the shoulders of WWWtW to show that dying a natural death is suicide and that there is something intrinsically against the natural goods of human existence to allow someone to determine the type of extraordinary care he/she wants in the case that he/she is no longer conscious enough to make that decision at the time. If WWWtW’s conclusions can be shown not to be a practical application of the goods, then their argument can be defeated within the context of a natural law argument. You have not as of yet shown how no two people can agree on its tenets, you have only pointed out that people can have disagreement of the practical application of the tenets. The foundation consists of the natural goods intrinsic to human existence. If there is a problem with someone’s practical reasoning we can show it to them through an appeal to reason and the natural goods.

You said: “Also, most of your list of natural goods are pursued instinctually. Believe me, my cats know that food is good without the capacity to reason it out. Some of the things on your list (such as education) are clearly not universally valued, where universality is not founded in convention and necessity. I don't think you've made your case for the ontological reality of natural law with that list.”

I am pretty sure that I made it clear that many of the goods are pursued instinctively. You are right, cats have a nature to seek out food, it is within its nature. And the need for nourishment is a natural good we share with animals (I thought I already addressed this). Unlike cats humans can choose to starve themselves because free will is also in our nature. Many people know and agree with the natural law precepts, they just may not know they are doing it. Instinctual goods are still goods to be pursued.

I would like you to expound on how education is not clearly universally valued. Education may not always be done in a formal setting as cultures rely on oral tradition and rites of passage, but cultural values are still taught. I think growing up within any culture without some type of education is impossible, I am interested in hearing your argument to the contrary. I’m pretty sure education is universally valued, otherwise cultures would not be propagated.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that natural law does not override free will. In fact no law does.

No, I'm not. I talking about that which provides a foundation for morality. A thing that is objectively present, such as a set of divine commandments, or subjectively present, such as a self-posited value, cannot be transgressed by free will merely by being unknown, or overlooked--natural law can.

Our standard for morality should not be its effectiveness in controlling people

Agreed. It should be that which is most effective in helping people control themselves.

Secondly, you do not know whether or not natural law is more or less ineffective than other moral systems.

I think I do know that, for the very reasons given in my first response above.

As for education, looked at in the sense of passing on culture from generation to generation, you are clearly correct. I was speaking of formal education, which has been a luxury available only to the upper classes, in most cultures until very recently. (I'm out of time now. More later.)

I said: “You seem to be ignoring the fact that natural law does not override free will. In fact no law does.”

You said: “No, I'm not. I talking about that which provides a foundation for morality. A thing that is objectively present, such as a set of divine commandments, or subjectively present, such as a self-posited value, cannot be transgressed by free will merely by being unknown, or overlooked--natural law can.”

Natural law is not merely unknown or overlooked, it is discerned by reflecting on human’s natural tendencies. It is discerned by trying to discern human nature, by looking at one’s experience and society. The existential challenge is to appropriate the naturally good values for one’s self and live according to them. The implication is that if one does not act according to one’s nature/ natural law, then they are not acting in one’s own best interest. Our actions to have consequences, not just legally but psychologically, physically, and spiritually, and these consequences exist because there is a natural order to things. Humans have a responsibility to discern, understand, and act according to this natural order. If there is no natural order that includes or human nature, then there can be no discussion of morality or appeal to principles like justice, freedom, truth, etc. Without natural order there is no morality because all standards are arbitrary and a dictatorship and will to power is just as much a valid system as anything else.

I said: “Our standard for morality should not be its effectiveness in controlling people”

You said: “Agreed. It should be that which is most effective in helping people control themselves.”

Yes, and as I said before, the good and just society helps its members act in a good and just fashion.

You said: “As for education, looked at in the sense of passing on culture from generation to generation, you are clearly correct. I was speaking of formal education, which has been a luxury available only to the upper classes, in most cultures until very recently. (I'm out of time now. More later.)”

Formal education is not a first precept. One may deduce that because education is good and helps order and advance the quality of life in society that the state, if able, should offer formal education and this education, if offered, should benefit every person possible. However, this would be an application of the first precept into a concrete situation. But only if education is a natural good we should begin to seek ways to expand the methods of educating into something like an institution, academy, or government policy.

"True objectivity is impossible in questions of morality. As it relates to government/politics, the best we can hope for is that the "tyranny of the majority" will get it right."

I'm not sure why it is impossible or what you mean by "true" objectivity. As for what you say, "the best we can hope for", I think that is a reasonable position for someone who adheres to relativism, though for me accpeting that genocide or slavery is okay if the majority says so is problematic.

Natural law is not merely unknown or overlooked, it is discerned by reflecting on human’s natural tendencies.

This may come as a shock to you, but about 99.9% of human beings rarely, if ever, reflect on human's natural tendencies in a way that would lead them within leagues and leagues of Aristotle's or Aquinas's conclusion about some embedded "natural law." Again, this is an irrelevancy.

Education of the former type is what led the Aztecs to the conclusion that more and better human sacrifices were what the natural law required of them. It would seem that an objective good would be always good, in that it would be necessary as well as beneficial, e.g. food (if you insist).

The existential challenge is to appropriate the naturally good values for one’s self and live according to them.

If speaking of Christian existentialists, the "naturally good values" are God-given commandments and their corollaries. If speaking of Sartrean existentialism, values are explicitly understood not to be a priori and "human nature," if accepted passively, to be either contingent upon chance, or delusional.

I said: “Natural law is not merely unknown or overlooked, it is discerned by reflecting on human’s natural tendencies.”

You said: “This may come as a shock to you, but about 99.9% of human beings rarely, if ever, reflect on human's natural tendencies in a way that would lead them within leagues and leagues of Aristotle's or Aquinas's conclusion about some embedded "natural law." Again, this is an irrelevancy.”

All right, some made up statistics, that is always fun. Just because people do not reflect on their tendencies does not mean they are not there. The insights of natural law are accessible through reason and social reflection. You are right to point out that many people may not reflect or apply practical reason, I am sure this is one of the reasons why people rationalize certain actions that are contrary to the natural law. However, that does not make the natural law irrelevant. Just because someone does not reflect on the mathematical nature of triangles, circles, and the inner relationship of numbers does not render logic and mathematics irrelevant and non-existent. In fact the strength of natural law is that people can discern it from their own nature is they are willing to reflect and use practical reasoning. This may come to a shock to you but not everyone takes stock in the Constitution or the elaborate subjective ethics of the existentialism of Sartre.

You said: “Education of the former type is what led the Aztecs to the conclusion that more and better human sacrifices were what the natural law required of them. It would seem that an objective good would be always good, in that it would be necessary as well as beneficial, e.g. food (if you insist).”

Yes, formal education is not infallible. There is need for reason, good science, and the grounding of our ethics in the dignity of the person rather than myth that contradicts the natural law. It was their supernatural beliefs that required human sacrifice, not the natural law. There is something inherently contradicting by claiming the goodness of life and existence as well as the community and then killing off some members of the community. It was the supernatural belief that provided the justification. The fact is we can show that human sacrifice is both unnecessary and a non-good, therefore not really beneficial towards achieving their supernatural objective of appeasing the gods. This can be shown through reason and not just a matter of opinion.

I said: “The existential challenge is to appropriate the naturally good values for one’s self and live according to them.”

You said: “If speaking of Christian existentialists, the "naturally good values" are God-given commandments and their corollaries. If speaking of Sartrean existentialism, values are explicitly understood not to be a priori and "human nature," if accepted passively, to be either contingent upon chance, or delusional.”

The existential challenge I was speaking of is the moment when we must appropriate objective values as our own personal values- the choice to live according to our human nature. Existentialism has always emphasized the openness in being, the question of the meaning of human existence, and the faculty of choice. Natural law does not negate a person’s free will. At any moment a person is able to act according to the Natural law or against it. They can conform to it or reject it. My comment was not referencing a particular existentialist philosopher or philosophy per se. Rather I was using what I think is a valuable and applicable insight to emphasize the importance of consciously and intentionally appropriating the goods of nature for one’s self and acting accordingly to the best of one’s ability.

Ryan--Do you, then, feel any need for a "public orthodoxy" to supplement those things now in place which serve to curb the appetites sufficiently to allow for a fairly free and peaceful existence within American society? If the answer is "no" then we've come to agreement on my point.If, however, the answer is "yes," I would ask first "Why?" and then "Upon what would you found it?" and if the answer to that is "Upon natural law," I would ask where may that code to read, so that it can be taught to the people?"

Moral Relativism would lead to absurd corollaries with which no one could agree

a) This is not, in fact, true, because;

b) So long as everybody possessed a morality, and pretty much adhered to its tenets, everybody would get along pretty well, for the most part, simply by obeying the statute law publicly and whatever religion or philosophy they happen to believe in privately. If you want to say that this would be based in "Natural Law", fine; I'm tired of arguing the point. I'd say that it's based in trial-and-error and a historical sense of what has worked and what hasn't. Either way, the state cannot dictate any one morality based on objects of faith, rather than on written law that has been tacitly approved by the people whose behavior it is to govern. Anything less than that always leads to chaos and revolution. That is the one reason for the longevity of our governmental system and the relative stability of our society.